Nestlé boycott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
This article has been tagged since December 2006.

The Nestlé boycott is a boycott launched on July 4, 1977 in the United States against the Swiss based Nestlé corporation. It soon spread rapidly outside the United States, particularly in Europe.^{[citation needed]} It was prompted by concern about the company's marketing of breast milk substitutes (infant formula), particularly in less economically developed countries (LEDCs), which campaigners claim contributes to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies, largely among the poor.^{[citation needed]}

1 The potential problems with infant formula in LEDCs
2 History of the boycott
3 Current status of the boycott
4 Other Nestlé operations targeted
5 See also
6 External links

[edit] The potential problems with infant formula in LEDCs

The promotion of infant formula over breast-feeding, particularly in LEDCs, has reportedly led to several health problems among infants in these countries.^{[citation needed]} There are three problems that are said to arise when poor mothers in Third World countries switch to formula. First, because most formula is of the powdered variety, it must be mixed with water before it is ready to feed. Due to contaminated water supplies in some poor countries, the formula is often mixed with contaminated water, which can cause diseases in infants fed the formula.

Second, unlike breast-feeding, formula costs money, which poor families cannot easily spare. Therefore, many poor mothers use less formula powder than is necessary, so as to make a container of formula last longer. As a result, some infants receive inadequate nutrition from weak solutions of formula.^{[citation needed]} Because of these two problems, it is recommended that poor mothers breast-feed their babies because doing so is free, and studies have shown that even mothers who suffer from inadequate nutrition can provide adequate nutrition to their babies via breast milk^{[citation needed]}.

Third, breast-feeding is an important route of antibodies from the mother to babies - providing partial immunity to a wide variety of diseases. Breast-fed babies are protected, in varying degrees, from a number of illnesses, including pneumonia, botulism, bronchitis, staphylococcal infections, influenza, ear infections, and German measles.^{[citation needed]} Breast milk is accepted as the most nutritious and appropriate food for infants^{[citation needed]}, providing all the nutrients required by an infant up to 6 months of age.^{[citation needed]} The composition of a woman's breast milk changes as her baby grows, ensuring it is correct for the baby's stage of development.^{[citation needed]}

In addition to these direct problems, the use of infant formula also reduces rates of breastfeeding and therefore some of the other benefits of breastfeeding.^{[citation needed]} There is evidence that breastfeeding reduces the incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or cot death, as well as other diseases such as diabetes later in life, and promotes bonding between mother and baby.^{[citation needed]} Breastfeeding also delays the return of fertility in most women, providing a natural contraceptive, as long as she is fully breastfeeding (i.e. the baby is not weaned at all), the baby is under six months of age, and her periods have not returned.^{[citation needed]} This can be particularly important for women in developing countries who may not have access to alternative forms of contraception. Inadequate birth spacing (multiple pregnancies close together) can have negative consequences for women and their babies, particularly in developing countries where adequate pre- and post-natal care may not be available.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] History of the boycott

Nestlé's perceived marketing strategy was first written about in New Internationalist magazine in 1973 and in a booklet called The Baby Killer, published by the British non-governmental organization War On Want in 1974. Nestlé attempted to sue the publisher of a German-language translation (Third World Action Group). After a two-year trial, the court found in favor of Nestlé and fined the group 300 Swiss francs because Nestlé could not be held responsible for the infant deaths 'in terms of criminal law'. But in his judgment the judge called on Nestlé to "fundamentally rethink its advertising policies" and said : "if the complainant in future wants to be spared the accusation of immoral and unethical conduct, he will have to change his advertising practices."(Dr.jur. Jürg Sollberger, 1976)^{[citation needed]}

The widespread publicity led to the launch of the boycott in Minneapolis, USA. In May 1978, the US Senate held a public hearing into the promotion of breast-milk substitutes in developing countries and joined calls for a Marketing Code. This was developed under the auspices of the World Health Organization and UNICEF and adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 as the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. The Code covers infant formula and other milk products, foods and beverages, when marketed or otherwise represented to be suitable as a partial or total replacement of breast-milk. It bans the promotion of breast-milk substitutes and gives health workers the responsibility of advising parents. It limits manufacturing companies to the provision of scientific and factual information to health workers and sets out labeling requirements.^{[citation needed]}

In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé and accepted the company's undertaking that it would abide by the Code, but the coordinators were not satisfied with Nestle's subsequent action and the boycott was relaunched in 1988.

In May 1999 a ruling against Nestlé was issued by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Nestlé claimed in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets infant formula “ethically and responsibly”. The ASA found that Nestlé could not support this nor other claims in the face of evidence provided by the campaigning group Baby Milk Action.

In November 2000, the European Parliament held a public hearing into Nestlé's alleged malpractices. Although management told shareholders months before that they welcomed the hearing, they refused to send a representative. At the time, Nestlé objected to a presence of an expert witness from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). Later Nestlé claimed none of its 230,000 employees was available.

[edit] Current status of the boycott

The boycott is now coordinated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is the UK group Baby Milk Action. Company practices are monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries.

In November 2000 the European Parliament invited IBFAN, UNICEF and Nestlé to present evidence to a Public Hearing before the Development and Cooperation Committee. Evidence was presented by the IBFAN group from Pakistan and UNICEF's legal officer commented on Nestlé's failure to bring its policies into line with the World Health Assembly Resolutions. Nestlé declined an invitation to attend, though it sent a representative of the auditing company it had commissioned to produce a report on its Pakistan operation.^{[citation needed]}

In parallel with the boycott, campaigners work for implementation of the Code and Resolutions in legislation and claim that 60 countries have now introduced laws implementing most or all of the provisions.

Many hundreds of European universities, colleges and schools, including over 200 in the United Kingdom, have banned the sale of Nestlé products from their shops and vending machines.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Other Nestlé operations targeted

Nestlé is sometimes targeted for other aspects of its operations. A Brazilian group called Cidadãos pelas Águas (Citizens for Water) has called a boycott of Nestlé in Brazil over the company's extraction of water from an aquifer in São Lourenço. Some also boycott Nestlé coffee and chocolate products in favour of fair trade alternatives. However, Partners Blend coffee, launched by Nestlé during 2005, has obtained Fairtrade labelling status. Baby Milk Action has also condemned this development [1].

In the Philippines, there exists a Boycott Nestle campaign due to suspected labor rights violations in a factory in Laguna province.^{[citation needed]} This campaign is lead by Kilusang Mayo Uno.